President Obama warned leaders in Congress that he wouldn't tolerate another

Blake Gatzke's insight:

Yesterday President Obama warned congressional leaders about the debt limit. The President doesn't want a repeat of what happen last August. During this meeting the speaker of the house, John Boehner, asked the president if he would aim for increasing the debt limit without including spending cuts. The president responded to this by saying yes. I don't understand why there is a debt limit when they keep increasing it. The current national debt is almost 16.8 trillion dollars, which is outrageous compared to where it was 5 years ago, at 9 trillion dollars.

I also don't understand why they continue to set a debt limit, but end up increasing it constantly. Its really pointless to me. Its going to be a long time before we can actually stay under our debt limit. It just seems like a repeating cycle to me.

I also don't understand why they keep increasing the debt limit. It seems like it's just a vicious circle that will never stop. If we can't manage to stay under the debt limit why have one and try to take it so seriously?

Lawyers for James E. Holmes had tried to bargain for their client to plead guilty in exchange for life in prison with no chance of parole.

Blake Gatzke's insight:

I think this is a very strategic move by the prosecutors. What I don't understand is why they are dragging this trial on so long. They know beyond a reasonable doubt that he was the shooter. I think he is faking the whole insanity thing. He should just plead guilty or he might be put to death. I really don't care what happens to him, I just want them to come to a decision and be done with the trial.

I agree that this trial has been going on for way too long. I personally don't think it matters whether or not he's "insane" because either way he knew exactly what he was doing and should have to pay the consequences for it. Whether the consequence is the death penalty or life in prison, I think they should just put this trial to an end and stop worrying about whether or not hes insane.

I also agree that this trial has been going on for too long. I don't understand why they had to drag out the trial for so long either. I don't really think that him trying to plead insane is any excuse for what he did. I don't wish for anyone to die but I think he is getting what he deserves for committing the crime.

WASHINGTON — President Obama met with more than a dozen corporate chief executives to seek their support for stalled cyber-security legislation amid increasing evidence that government agencies, businesses and individuals are vulnerable to...

Blake Gatzke's insight:

Finally! Obama is focusing on an issue that is not related to guns. Cyber attacks could hit us at any time and without prior warning. That is why it is more dangerous to us than terrorist attacks. Attacks take a lot of time and planning, but a cyber attack is swift and easy if the hacker knows what they are doing. We need to fix the vulnerabilities in our cyber-security.

Cyber-Security seems to be becoming a big issue lately and I'm happy to see Obama's focus going more towards that then the gun control laws. It seems as though terrorist attacks may be a bigger threat through hacking and what not. We definitely need to make sure our cyber security is top notch.

I agree as well. I'm glad to see that Obama is finally trying to find solutions to other problems especially other than gun violence. I think that this is a situation that wouldn't make so many people angry and we could start to get some solutions.

I think that this is a step in the right direction... finally. As we mentioned in or fish bowl discussion I think that banning guns, no matter what they are or how many there are banned is not the issue. I think that the real problem is everything else: culture, video games, movies, how parents are or are not teaching their kids. Many of modern day beliefs are what I think are at fault for the public shootings when we've had guns for hundreds of years and their only now starting to be a problem? good to see that Obama is focusing on something that will actually improve something.

Legal experts question use of 'narcoanalytic interview' to settle question of Holmes's legal insanity at time of theater shooting

Blake Gatzke's insight:

Even though I am disgusted by what this man has done, they should not violate his right to remain silent(5th amendment), by using truth serum to prove if he was legally insane at the time of the shooting at the cinema in Aurora, CO.

"When President Obama chose Vice President Joe Biden to head his gun violence research commission, putting him front and center in the national gun debate, it was only a matter of time until the gaffs started rolling."

Blake Gatzke's insight:

Just based on the argument what type of gun should be used for home defense, I do not agree with Biden. From my experiences I have shot a shotgun and a rifle before, and the rifle was a lot easier to shoot. Biden argues that a shotgun is easier to fire and more accurate than an AR-15, which is not true. I think he should get his facts straight before he gives any more gun advice.

I think Joe Biden is making some pretty controversial statements. Clearly a AR-15 is easier to control than a shotgun. If he is going to be the head of the gun violence issue, he needs to start getting his facts straight and give proper advice.

I do agree with Bernanke. The sequester will be cutting too much too soon. The big cuts should be replaced with policies to reduce the federal deficit at a gradual pace at first and then increase in the future.

I agree with Blake as well. I think that the sequester will be making too many drastic cuts, too soon. I think that they should start with smaller budget cuts and then see how things work out, and if needed make some more. I think that without gradually increasing the cuts, this might set our economy at a disadvantage.

I think this was a great article and I completely agree with Blake that Bernanke is making a good statement about the sequester cuts being too soon. I think decisions like this cannot be rushed and if we make the wrong decision it could cause a lot of damage. Not to mention the amount of money that is being dealt with is pretty phenomenal. So making smaller budget cuts would make more sense in my opinion and would be a a lot safer route.

Good for them...hopefully they will continue to stop selling to local and federal govts who are infringing on their ability to provide a service and stay in business. Some companies have threatened to leave states with strict gun laws, such as CO. As more states choose to regulate, the more companies will have to go to less restrictive states to do business. Sadly, liberals never understand that over-regulation leads to more restrictions on business, less freedoms for consumers and eventually stagnates the economy and leads to collapse...more unemployment,etc.

I agree with Blake. I think this makes perfect sense because gun companies aren't going to get any business selling to states that have these strict laws. If it is really difficult to own a gun then more people will not own one. It sounds like common sense to me.

I also agree. It wouldn't make any sense for the gun companies to sell weapons to states that have too strict of gun laws. If they continued too, it would just be realistically a waste of their time and setting their business up for failure.

Months after the massacre of 26 people at a Newtown, Conn., school, legislative leaders announced what they called the most far-reaching gun-legislation package in the country.

Blake Gatzke's insight:

I think that these laws make perfect sense. It is a step in the right direction. Stricter background checks and having a registry for all gun related offenders is a necessity to control who can purchase and own weapons. They are also expanding their laws that deal with the banning of assault weapons. I think gun control is more of a state issue rather than a national issue. The success of the states getting gun laws passed is outweighing the government efforts.

I also agree that stricter background checks are a step in the right direction. From the start I've thought that stricter background checks is one of the biggest things that needs to be passed in the gun laws. As far as the list of banned guns, I think that that should be strictly up to the state and not a national law.

I also agree that conducting stricter background checks is a good step of progress in this problem. I think this is one of the biggest ways that will help stop this problem and I'm glad to see that they're starting to agree on things. I don't really think that the banning of guns should be a nationwide thing, it should be state wide.

Rochester residents can, once again, look forward to another election — this time, a runoff between Randy Staver and Michael Wojcik.

Blake Gatzke's insight:

There is going to be a run-off election for Rochester city council president because there were 4 candidates and none of them got 51% of the majority vote. The top two candidates advanced to the run-off election, which will be on May 7th. This whole thing started because of a technicality in one of our state laws. One of the candidates that was on the ballot in November died earlier in the year, but his name could not be removed from the ballot. He ended up winning the election, so they had to have a second election to fill the spot and now they have to have a run off. More elections will follow since they will have to fill either of the candidates’ positions on the council, since both of them are council members.

I'm interested to see what the results are for this election. I personally don't know a lot about Staver or Wojcik, but I do know that who ever wins will play an important role in the Rochester community. With more elections even after this one, I feel like the votes will be very close.

The annual Worldwide Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Community is out this week, a widely-anticipated report compiled by the nation’s intelligence agencies.

Blake Gatzke's insight:

It does not surprise me that cyber warfare is the number one threat to the United states. It tops terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. Cyber warfare is a big threat because it completely anonymous. Our country needs to beef up its security so it is able to stop this silent threat.

Gun violence in the United States can be substantially reduced if Congress expands requirements for background checks on retail gun sales to cover firearm transfers between private parties, a new report concludes.

Blake Gatzke's insight:

Finally, something that makes sense. Having stricter background checks would help reduce the number of firearms that fall into the hands of criminals, because it would make sure that the person purchasing the gun can legally do so. This article also goes on to say that Sandy Hook intensified peoples perspective of guns, even though gun violence is an everyday issue. If Sandy hook would have never happened there wouldn't be so much talk about gun control. Coincidence? I think not.

I would say that this is a good idea. More strict background checks on people buying guns would defiantly help with the shootings we are trying to cease. Taking away guns from people who should have the right to have them because they are mature enough to have them isn't right, but taking them away from those who don't deserve them is part of what I think should be done.

I think that this makes complete sense. A great solution to this gun violence issue would be to make better background checks. I believe that this would keep the weapons out of the hands of criminals and others that would be deemed unacceptable to own a firearm. This article also talks about how all of this gun violence debating happened after Sandy Hook shooting. I think that that may be a good reason to react so much over the weapon violence, but at the same time I feel like the government is taking some of the possible solutions too far.

I agree that this solution to gun control makes more sense than some of the other ideas people have come up with. I agree that background checks will definitely help keep guns out of the hands of mentally ill people, criminals, etc. This will also allow people who are mentally stable to still purchase guns.

This article is very intriguing because the people who made the gun control bill did not even know that one of the country's largest producers of gun magazines was in their state. It will cost the state over 600 jobs and $85 million. They are just trying to get gun control laws passed before they do their research. Hopefully this incident will make other states more aware before making decisions about gun control.

thx to @joethemailman for sharing...job losses for Colorado and loss of revenue will mean gains for a gun friendly state like TX or AZ? Liberals don't think about the consequences of their regulations and desire to control people. The more they regulate and limit rights the more freedoms they take and the less business friendly they make it for businesses...which leads to job losses and revenue losses like in Detroit!

I think that the people that made this bill should have thought it through a little better. It's a shame that these people are basically hurting their own state with the number of jobs and costs. They definitely needed to do better research.

I think this article is very insightful because it gives great examples of how the president should really deal with gun control. They should stop putting the blame on guns and start putting it on the criminals that use them. They are using the tragedy in Connecticut to blame guns. The topic they should really be focusing on is the country's mental health system and policies. Guns need to stop being glorified in video games and movies.

I think that this article shows some great ways to help prevent gun violence. I really think that our president needs to consider some of these ideas. It seems to me that he thinks that blaming things on the weapons will help solve this problem by removing them. I would have to disagree with that. The criminals are the ones responsible for these crimes that are happening, not the weapons. Realistically, I believe that if he takes away people's firearms and taking away their right to self defense, there will be more trouble than there already is.

Sharing your scoops to your social media accounts is a must to distribute your curated content. Not only will it drive traffic and leads through your content, but it will help show your expertise with your followers.

Integrating your curated content to your website or blog will allow you to increase your website visitors’ engagement, boost SEO and acquire new visitors. By redirecting your social media traffic to your website, Scoop.it will also help you generate more qualified traffic and leads from your curation work.

Distributing your curated content through a newsletter is a great way to nurture and engage your email subscribers will developing your traffic and visibility.
Creating engaging newsletters with your curated content is really easy.